Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 266 posts

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#211

Post by danaris »

scarface74 wrote: post #132
danaris wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And absolutely nothing came of browser bundling in the US. But that has much less to do with the merits of the case, and much more to do with the fact that just before any action could be taken, George W Bush was elected president and began our current trajectory toward unbridled corporate governance of America.

Merits of the case decided by who? A bunch of not-lawyers on HN? Do you think the government should step in and not allow any device to bundled with a browser? Why stop at browsers? Why don’t we just force all manufactures to ship every device without an OS?

> Merits of the case decided by who?

Decided by the entirety of the legal apparatus prior to the election in 2000. I don't recall the details at this late date, and you can Google as well as I can, but my memory is that the judge in that case had recommended that Microsoft be broken up for it before Bush came to power.

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#212

Post by eropple »

xvector wrote: post #50
nus07 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/12/06/lina-khans-bat... For more context. A long but good read on the current FTC chairman.

Lina Khan may have written great papers but she isn't fit for the job. She harbors a hate for big tech and cannot be impartial in her dealings. See her recent attempt to prevent Meta from acquiring Within. There is no sane, level-headed case that could possibly paint this acquisition as an antitrust violation. Even most legal experts will agree that Lina Khan's case is a stretch at best. It's clear that this case is…

Can you enlighten me as to why this is only a problem when somebody is not reflexively in favor of handing the keys to everything to large companies, and not when they are?

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#213

Post by scarface74 »

danaris wrote: post #211
scarface74 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Merits of the case decided by who? A bunch of not-lawyers on HN? Do you think the government should step in and not allow any device to bundled with a browser? Why stop at browsers? Why don’t we just force all manufactures to ship every device without an OS?

> Merits of the case decided by who? Decided by the entirety of the legal apparatus prior to the election in 2000. I don't recall the details at this late date, and you can Google as well as I can, but my memory is that the judge in that case had recommended that Microsoft be broken up for it before Bush came to power.

One judge is not “the entire legal apparatus”

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#214

Post by preommr »

starwind wrote: post #127
xxpor wrote: post #78

One of the conservative's legal project over the past 50 years main goals has been to maintain a Borkian consumer harm standard for anti-trust. With the current SCOTUS, I don't see much of a realistic path for this.

Bork argued that antitrust law shouldn't inherently challenge bigness. He felt that the antitrust should seek to maximize consumer welfare. That's been interpreted by the courts to mean lower prices, but any economist worth their salt will say consumer choice is an aspect of consumer welfare. It doesn't matter if Little Caesars pizza is the cheapest option, if there aren't any other pizza options, consumer welfare is…

> Ruth Bader Ginsburg—despite being lionized by liberals—was an extremely pro-business justice who played a strong role in the Supreme Court siding with businesses in all but one antitrust case

I googled this because it seemed interesting.

The first two articles I looked up emphasize how little influence she had on anti-trust cases. At her hearing she said "Antitrust … is not my strong suit." It seems like she went along with other more experienced judges in this area such as Scalia or Breyer who is noted for being very business-friendly.

Where is your idea that Ginsburg was the lynchpin for weak anti-trust rulings coming from?

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#215

Post by skybrian »

As a consumer, I'm wondering if it would be better for me if ads were more or less expensive. Maybe more expensive would be better? Would it be good if they were taxed, or there were minimum prices that websites could charge advertisers?

Also, is Google's ad tech or third-party ad tech better from a privacy point of view? A lot of people distrust Google, but why would they trust no-name third-party ad tech any more? Are there any online advertising companies that have a better track record on privacy?

It seems the anti-trust framework doesn't map very well to consumer concerns about advertising.

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#216

Post by scarface74 »

crazygringo wrote: post #183
scarface74 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So now the government is going to force a separation into multiple companies and by doing so increase user tracking and sharing information across companies… Win???

I'm not defending it, but the win would be for website owners who might make slightly more profits, and advertisers who might pay slightly less for ads -- all because increased competition would reduce profits by ad exchanges. Of course, that's against not just more tracking/sharing as you mention, but also probably significantly worse ad loading times and bloat in general. It's awfully hard and hypothetical to estim…

You realize you’re really supporting the Bork view that anti trust should be about user harm. Everything you said makes the user experience worse.

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#217

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

strongpigeon wrote: post #160

I think it’s worth saying for people not too familiar with the space that this is specifically about Display and Video ads on third party websites. The lawsuit is about how Google managed to get in the entire stack (publisher, exchange and (less importantly for the lawsuit) buy side) and (according to the plaintiffs) abused their positions. I’d really encourage people read the lawsuit. It’s long, but most of the repo…

Text-only, no PDF needed:

   curl https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66753787/1/united-states-v-google-llc/ \
   |sed '1,/div id=\"opinion-content\">/d;/
/s//&/;//,$d' > 1.htm
   firefox ./1.htm


https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66753787/1/united-state...

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#218

Post by crazygringo »

scarface74 wrote: post #216
crazygringo wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not defending it, but the win would be for website owners who might make slightly more profits, and advertisers who might pay slightly less for ads -- all because increased competition would reduce profits by ad exchanges. Of course, that's against not just more tracking/sharing as you mention, but also probably significantly worse ad loading times and bloat in general. It's awfully hard and hypothetical to estim…

You realize you’re really supporting the Bork view that anti trust should be about user harm. Everything you said makes the user experience worse.

> You realize you’re really supporting

You realize I literally prefaced it with "I'm not defending it"?

> Everything you said makes the user experience worse.

Yes, that was the whole point of my second sentence.

I was just explaining why some people do see it as a win. Even if you disagree, it's not an absurd position to take.

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#219

Post by TheRealPomax »

strongpigeon wrote: post #160

I think it’s worth saying for people not too familiar with the space that this is specifically about Display and Video ads on third party websites. The lawsuit is about how Google managed to get in the entire stack (publisher, exchange and (less importantly for the lawsuit) buy side) and (according to the plaintiffs) abused their positions. I’d really encourage people read the lawsuit. It’s long, but most of the repo…

To be fair, while that has nothing to do with the complaint: mannnn they really should. Insert MS comparison and a comment on how the US seems to not have the power to do anything more than wag their finger at anti-trust here.

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#220

Post by jeffbee »

dekhn wrote: post #204
jeffbee wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you draft the rule? Is it just that Google is forbidden to offer services of any kind that other people also offer? Speaking as an informed consumer I strenuously prefer Google Flights over all others. I'd feel harmed if the DOJ just outlawed the 1 offering that wasn't a giant scam.

I wouldn't know how to draft a rule (I don't even know if what they are doing is illegal). I think the Flights interface is superior to the competitors as well. However, it's unclear to what extent Google is using their control of ranking to ensure that their onebox shows up on top, and how much that prevents people from seeing competitor's sites.

I guess I find the question to be off point because when I search for flights from SFO to JFK I am looking for the ticket itself, not a fourth party that can resell the tickets to me. So all the links to Kayak etc are bad results anyway, although direct links to airlines' own sites would be good results. But that's essentially what Google Flights is: a vertical that cuts out middlemen.

If I search "sites that resell airline tickets" then Google Flights does not appear anywhere in the results.

Post reply on HN